The trinity doesn't matter?

[jessedance]

This is a clear statement that the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7




​

spurious scriputre along with math. 28:19. both big gun scriptures for trinity are spurious added on to the bible. that quote of 1 john 5:7 is only in the TR. It is not in B, ALEPH, A 33, the UBS (UNITED BIBLE SOCIETY) Gives its omission an A rating meaning it is certain it wasn't in the original. math. 28;19 is in no manucsript prior to the council of nicea in 325 ad. however there are many quotes of it by various people who wrote book s both before and after the council of nicea thatquote it without the triatic fromula. what happended is that they either tore out that part of math. (none of the papryi in existance that were written prior to 325 ad have that part of math. in it. its been torn out.) so those two big gun scritpures for trinity are spurious. it became obvious to the people at the council of nicea that there was no support in scriptue for trinity so they put some in. IMO
Lots of trinitarians know this . but still quote it. just like godhead, there is no greek word in the bible that means godhead but who cares tradition is more important.theotes, in col 2:9 means divinity or god essence not god head
the greek word for head is not in there its kapa it doesnt say theotes kapa. but again many know this but just dont care they just keep on using the word godhead even though its not a biblical word. cause it proves trinity.

 

[jessedance]

i'd like to quote Rotherhams emphasised bible , a very literal bible on 1 john 5:7.
here is what god really said,

Because three are they who are bearing witness-
The spirit, and the water, and the Blood;
and the three are witnesses unto one thing.

The spirit and the baptism and Jesus shed blood all bear witness unto the son not the trinity.
look at vs. 10
again rotherhams version, the best in my opinion

He that believeth on the Son of God
Hath the witness lwithin himselfl,-
He that doth not believe God
lFalsel hath made him,-
Because he hath not believed on the witness
which lGodl hath witnessed lconcerning his sonl-

Rotherham inserts vertical lines around words or phrases to show that they should be emphasised. thats why its called the emphasised bible.
so you see according to vs. 10 the prupose of the witness in 1 john 5:7 is not to witness to the trinity but to witness to jesus. can i get an amen on that?

 

[Starcrystal]

Der Alter,
You evidently did not read all the scriptures and comments I wrote. The Holy Spirit is sent from God and while away from God thinks, speaks, sends, etc.

AWAY from God??

I thought God was omnipresent. No?

The Holy Spirit is never "AWAY" from God, since God is always IN the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the avenue through which God speaks to us and leads us.

 

[Der Alte]

god is not a person, humans are persons.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0208500.html
[/list] No definition of person says that a person is god they all say that a person is a human, only the christian definition, which they manufactured contrary to the meaning of the word is used in reference to God. and that don't count cause its changing language to fit doctrine.

Go back and read your own dictionary quote particularly 2., 3, and 5. Then produce proof that anyone at any time changed the meaning of the word.

2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.

3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
. . .
5. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.

6. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.​

And just for the sake of accuracy the word initially applied to differentiate between, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was the Latin word "persona."

persona (g). Law t. t., a being having legal rights and obligations (including the state, etc.; not including slaves; cf. Sandars ad Just. Inst. introd. § 37; 1, 3 prooem.): omne jus quo utimur, vel ad personas pertinet vel ad res vel ad actiones, Dig. 1, 5, 1 ; Just. Inst. 1, 3 prooem.--

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform
​

 

[Der Alte]

spurious scriputre along with math. 28:19. both big gun scriptures for trinity are spurious added on to the bible. that quote of 1 john 5:7 is only in the TR. It is not in B, ALEPH, A 33, the UBS (UNITED BIBLE SOCIETY) Gives its omission an A rating meaning it is certain it wasn't in the original. math. 28;19 is in no manucsript prior to the council of nicea in 325 ad. however there are many quotes of it by various people who wrote book s both before and after the council of nicea thatquote it without the triatic fromula. what happended is that they either tore out that part of math. (none of the papryi in existance that were written prior to 325 ad have that part of math. in it. its been torn out.) so those two big gun scritpures for trinity are spurious. it became obvious to the people at the council of nicea that there was no support in scriptue for trinity so they put some in. IMO
Lots of trinitarians know this . but still quote it. just like godhead, there is no greek word in the bible that means godhead but who cares tradition is more important.theotes, in col 2:9 means divinity or god essence not god head
the greek word for head is not in there its kapa it doesnt say theotes kapa. but again many know this but just dont care they just keep on using the word godhead even though its not a biblical word. cause it proves trinity.

The only thing that is spurious is your post. Look right in the middle, the whole thing boils down to your opinion, which means diddly squat. You have not proved a single thing. You are no different than the other heterodox groups here. You believe what you want to believe and anything that contradicts you, you blow it off with nothing but your opinion. You know nothing about the Greek language, so don't be trying to say what anything in Greek means or doesn't mean.

 

[Der Alte]

AWAY from God??

I thought God was omnipresent. No?

The Holy Spirit is never "AWAY" from God, since God is always IN the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the avenue through which God speaks to us and leads us.

Did you read any of the scripture I posted? Was the Father ever away from Jesus? I'm thinking especially about when Jesus quoted Psalm 22. "Eloi, Eloi, Lama sabachthani?" Then reread the scriptures I posted and see if those scriptures do not speak of distinction in some sense.

 

[jessedance]

der alter;
your response to my post was nothing but insults. proving your doctrine by insulting me proves nothing.

The only thing that is spurious is your post. Look right in the middle, the whole thing boils down to your opinion, which means diddly squat. You have not proved a single thing. You are no different than the other heterodox groups here. You believe what you want to believe and anything that contradicts you, you blow it off with nothing but your opinion. You know nothing about the Greek language, so don't be trying to say what anything in Greek means or doesn't mean.

This is why talking to you is useless you just prove your points by insulting me.

 

[Starcrystal]

Der Alter,
Did you read any of the scripture I posted? Was the Father ever away from Jesus? I'm thinking especially about when Jesus quoted Psalm 22. "Eloi, Eloi, Lama sabachthani?" Then reread the scriptures I posted and see if those scriptures do not speak of distinction in some sense.

Yes I read ALL of them. I wont respond to a post without reading all of it. The "Eloi, Eloi Lama sabachthani" statemet was made at a ONE TIME event when The Father part of the godhead temporarily turned away from the SIN that was on Jesus. At that time and that time only I think Jesus was fully man and the Spirit departed the physical shell. Then the Spirit came back after the sin was judged. This doesn't make them completely separate.

My spirit can leave my body (And I've had a couple such experiences) Paul describes this in 2 Corinthians 12:1 - 4, though he wasn't sure if it an out of body experience, or a physical "teleportation" into the 3rd heavens. I also had a tream where I "trilocated." Our spirit, soul & body can separate, but yet they are one. When our spirit leaves our body, our body is not conscious of it. Your consciousness is in your spirit. I know this may be hard to understand if you haven't experienced it, but for me it helps me understand the triune nature of God. Of course with God, all 3 are conscious at the same time, because he IS God!

 

[Der Alte]

der alter;
your response to my post was nothing but insults. proving your doctrine by insulting me proves nothing.
This is why talking to you is useless you just prove your points by insulting me.

Well now, I'm real sorry about that, JD because the post I was responding to, was a deliberate insult to me an virtually every other Trinitarian. Here is that post again, I have highlighted and numbered the parts I object to.

(1) A false statement, no evidence.
(2) Another false statement, no evidence.
(3) A false statement, no evidence.
(4) A false statement, no evidence.
(5) A false statement, no evidence. The Nicaean council did not add to or take away any part of the scriptures.
(6) Implies all Trinitarians who quote Matt 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 are liars.
(7) False statement, no evidence.
(8) Implies all Trinitarians are liars and accept tradition over scripture.
(9) Implies Trinitarians are liars, who believe that “theotes” means godhead.

The next time you want to cry about insults clean up your own back yard first.

[(1) spurious scriputre along with math. 28:19. both big gun scriptures for trinity are spurious added on to the bible. that quote of 1 john 5:7 is only in the TR. It is not in B, ALEPH, A 33, the UBS (UNITED BIBLE SOCIETY) Gives its omission an A rating meaning it is certain it wasn't in the original. math. 28;19 is in no manucsript prior to the council of nicea in 325 ad. however there are many quotes of it by various people who wrote book s both before and after the council of nicea thatquote it without the triatic fromula. what happended is that they either (2) tore out that part of math. (none of the papryi in existance that were written prior to 325 ad have that (3) part of math. in it. its been torn out.) so those two big gun (4)scritpures for trinity are spurious. it became obvious to the people at (5) the council of nicea that there was no support in scriptue for trinity so they put some in. IMO
(6) Lots of trinitarians know this . but still quote it. just like (7) godhead, there is no greek word in the bible that means godhead but (8) who cares tradition is more important.theotes, in col 2:9 means divinity or god essence not god head
the greek word for head is not in there its kapa it doesnt say theotes kapa. but again (9) many know this but just dont care they just keep on using the word godhead even though its not a biblical word. cause it proves trinity.

And just FYI here is a little real scholarship on the words "theotes" and "godhead." They mean the same thing!

Liddle-Scott-Jones online classical Greek lexicon.

theotês , êtos, hê, divinity, divine nature, Ep.Col.2.9, Plu.2.359d, Luc. Icar.9, etc.; dia theotêta for religious reasons, Heliod. ap. Orib.50.7.1.

theiotês , êtos, hê, divine nature, divinity, LXX Wi.18.9,Ep.Rom.1.20, SIG867.31 (Ephesus, ii A.D.), Plu.2.665a, etc.

2. f.l.for hosiotês, Isoc.11.26, Plu.2.857a, and so prob. in Id.Sull.6.
II. as title of Roman Emperors, Orib.1.1.1, SIG900.23 (Panamara, iv A.D.), etc.

http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/resolveform

Merriam-Webster online dictionary

Main Entry: god·head
Pronunciation: -"hed
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English godhed, from god + -hed –hood; akin to Middle English –hod –hood
1 : divine nature or essence : DIVINITY[emphasis added]
2 capitalized a : GOD 1 b : the nature of God especially as existing in three persons -- used with the

http://www.m-w.com/
​

​

 

[True Believer]

Jesse ,
I have dealt with the person who calls himself Der Alter many times before and you will never be dealt with in a civil manner by him. He claims to know everything and will flood this now with self important peoples tons of information which constantly repeat the same nonsense. We have all seen how he insults others directly and then claims because they disagree with a teaching they are somehow doing a personal attack against him and his beliefs when it is only a disagreement with one of his beliefs and has nothing to do with him as a person. The only time it ever gets personal is when he starts name calling and somehow gets away with calling others liars. I have been on the recieving end of his many insults on several occasions. I do not think you will get anywhere debating him the best thing for all to do is ignore him so that he will have no one to argue with and in doing so help him to control his anger. It would seem to me to be the best christian thing to do to show love for him and to help him to get closer to God and to come to know Love.
Agape' to ALL, TB

 

[jessedance]

tb;
ditto
good advice.

 

[Lost]

As my knowledge is very limited I do not post in this area of CF but have been a long time reader.

My interest is merely an educational one to which I find Der Alters teachings to be very helpful.

You will not get anywhere debating with him because you ignore the scriptual evidence and have yet to back-up your disagreements with any biblical proof to which Der Alter has many times very politely given you the chance.

Each time he has invited either of you to further the discussion with facts and evidence to back-up your claims to which he is completely willing to discuss civily you attack his character. I admire his restraint in replying to your callowness.

Either you do not have the intelligence &/or education to find the information you need to support your opinions or there is no such evidence.

Sour grapes gentlemen?

 

[Der Alte]

again rotherhams version, the best in my opinion
Rotherham inserts vertical lines around words or phrases to show that they should be emphasised. thats why its called the emphasised bible.
so you see according to vs. 10 the prupose of the witness in 1 john 5:7 is not to witness to the trinity but to witness to jesus. can i get an amen on that?

And since you know nothing about Biblical Hebrew or Greek, how do you know that Rotherham emphasized the right words, in the right places? And 1 John 5:8, you only have one man's opinion about its authenticity. As with all heterdox groups you select Bible translations and sources based, not on any independent evidence that they are correct, but because they support your own presuppositions and assumptions.

 

[jessedance]

You will not get anywhere debating with him because you ignore the scriptual evidence and have yet to back-up your disagreements with any biblical proof to which Der Alter has many times very politely given you the chance.

Each time he has invited either of you to further the discussion with facts and evidence to back-up your claims to which he is completely willing to discuss civily you attack his character. I admire his restraint in replying to your callowness.

Either you do not have the intelligence &/or education to find the information you need to support your opinions or there is no such evidence.

Sour grapes gentlemen?

Lost Sheep;
here is what der alter said in response to my post

The only thing that is spurious is your post. Look right in the middle, the whole thing boils down to your opinion, which means diddly squat. You have not proved a single thing. You are no different than the other heterodox groups here. You believe what you want to believe and anything that contradicts you, you blow it off with nothing but your opinion. You know nothing about the Greek language, so don't be trying to say what anything in Greek means or doesn't mean.

You find this quote to be one with restraint and one whereby he is being verry polite? you find this quote to b e one backed up with scripture and proof?
i just iggy people who talk to me like this. this is wrong?

 

[ByGrace]

der alter;
your response to my post was nothing but insults. proving your doctrine by insulting me proves nothing.
This is why talking to you is useless you just prove your points by insulting me.

Hard not to insult someone who approaches with an isulting twist on reality and what the Word of God truly teaches. If you want a good version of the Bible, go get the NASB as it is a word for word translation.

 

[ByGrace]

Jesse ,
I have dealt with the person who calls himself Der Alter many times before and you will never be dealt with in a civil manner by him. He claims to know everything and will flood this now with self important peoples tons of information which constantly repeat the same nonsense. We have all seen how he insults others directly and then claims because they disagree with a teaching they are somehow doing a personal attack against him and his beliefs when it is only a disagreement with one of his beliefs and has nothing to do with him as a person. The only time it ever gets personal is when he starts name calling and somehow gets away with calling others liars. I have been on the recieving end of his many insults on several occasions. I do not think you will get anywhere debating him the best thing for all to do is ignore him so that he will have no one to argue with and in doing so help him to control his anger. It would seem to me to be the best christian thing to do to show love for him and to help him to get closer to God and to come to know Love.
Agape' to ALL, TB

attacking der alter is such an easy thing for someone to do when they come from an occultic background and refuse to see the truth. Since when did caring enough about peoples souls and listening to the commands of the Bible to earnestly "contend for the faith that was ONCE FOR ALL" given to the Christian Church amount to hate? Maybe this is how it is viewed in the kingdom hall or the mormon temple (one in the same?) but we are accountable to Jesus Christ for the loss of souls that we may have helped.

 

[Lost]

Lost Sheep;
here is what der alter said in response to my post
You find this quote to be one with restraint and one whereby he is being verry polite? you find this quote to b e one backed up with scripture and proof?
i just iggy people who talk to me like this. this is wrong?

Jesse ,
I have dealt with the person who calls himself Der Alter many times before and you will never be dealt with in a civil manner by him. He claims to know everything and will flood this now with self important peoples tons of information which constantly repeat the same nonsense. We have all seen how he insults others directly and then claims because they disagree with a teaching they are somehow doing a personal attack against him and his beliefs when it is only a disagreement with one of his beliefs and has nothing to do with him as a person. The only time it ever gets personal is when he starts name calling and somehow gets away with calling others liars. I have been on the recieving end of his many insults on several occasions. I do not think you will get anywhere debating him the best thing for all to do is ignore him so that he will have no one to argue with and in doing so help him to control his anger. It would seem to me to be the best christian thing to do to show love for him and to help him to get closer to God and to come to know Love.
Agape' to ALL, TB

The only thing that is spurious is your post. Look right in the middle, the whole thing boils down to your opinion, which means diddly squat. You have not proved a single thing. You are no different than the other heterodox groups here. You believe what you want to believe and anything that contradicts you, you blow it off with nothing but your opinion. You know nothing about the Greek language, so don't be trying to say what anything in Greek means or doesn't mean.

DA is simply and politely saying that an opinion with no biblical evidence/proof is merely that, an opinion. Anyone who tries to claim their opinion is correct on any subject without fact to back it up makes their stance mean diddly squat. That is just common sense. Saying someones post is spurious is saying it is false. If it is not false - back it up with proof and evidence, not merely opinion and presuppositions.

Instead of blowing off the posts showing evidence of his stance the proper way to rebut would be to post biblical evidence proving yours.

Instead of an intelligent/educational rebuttal I see angry answers accusing DA of being uncivil, a know-it-all, self-important (conceit, arrogant or pompous), claiming his repeated educational posts are nonsense without proof/evidence to back up the claim, and insinuating he isn't close enough to God and does not know love.

That is not disagreeing with his teachings - it is a personal attack.

It takes far more considerable restraint than I'd ever have to ignore such insults as he has done. Yes, I do admire that greatly.

He has repeatedly backed his posts up with scripture/proof and is answered with only opinion and insults.

This is only one post out of many. Not all posts need scripture support. DA said in his last post on page seven of this thread that you implied, he and all other people who believe in the Trinity are liars and deliberately quote spurious scripture that they know is false. And he did post some links to back up what he was saying. Instead of answering what he posted I see two people who seem to be violating the rules by talking about another member behind his back. If you ignore people whose posts you don’t like why are you talking about him?

Your post

http://www.christianforums.co.uk/sh...34&postcount=61 <http://www.christianforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2637334&postcount=61>

Der Alter&#8217;s answer

http://www.christianforums.co.uk/sh...54&postcount=69 <http://www.christianforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2663054&postcount=69>

 

[jessedance]

"5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement." --NET Bible

Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence-both external and internal-is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/1john5-7.htm

More proof that 1 john 5:7, the big gun trinity verse, is spurious. in light of this overwhelming proof that 1 john 5:7 is spurious, the longer version, the question arises why people adhere to it so strongly.?

 

[Der Alte]

Jesse ,
I have dealt with the person who calls himself Der Alter many times before and you will never be dealt with in a civil manner by him.

You are in error here, Der Alter always starts out nice and polite. I am nice until it is time not to be nice. And the people who are promoting heterodox religious groups always decide when that is. Just like the other person in this thread claiming I insulted him. He refuses to see that he called me a liar three times in one post and then has the nerve to complain.

He claims to know everything and will flood this now with self important peoples tons of information which constantly repeat the same nonsense.

Oh you must have made a mistake I know as much as you complain about my posts you would never, ever accuse me of doing something I have never done. I have never claimed to know everything! It appears that someone is very resentful because I am knowledgable about the Bible and Bible history.

Most of what you are calling “self important peoples tons of information which constantly repeat the same nonsense” is the same sources that JW writings quote out-of-context, and selectively, deliberately leaving out information to twist the source and make it appear to support the JW teachings, when it actually doesn't. Especially that piece of JW nonsense, “Should You Believe the Trinity” All the JWs on this forum closed their eyes when I proved that virtually every quote in it was false.

We have all seen how he insults others directly and then claims because they disagree with a teaching they are somehow doing a personal attack against him and his beliefs when it is only a disagreement with one of his beliefs and has nothing to do with him as a person.

You seem to be making another mistake. To my knowledge I have never accused anyone of a personal attack.

The only time it ever gets personal is when he starts name calling and somehow gets away with calling others liars. I have been on the recieving end of his many insults on several occasions.

Oh you must be forgetting how you accused all Trinitarians of lacking reading comprehension skills and not being able to grasp their own language. I think that was in February.

I do not think you will get anywhere debating him the best thing for all to do is ignore him so that he will have no one to argue with and in doing so help him to control his anger. It would seem to me to be the best christian thing to do to show love for him and to help him to get closer to God and to come to know Love. Agape' to ALL, TB

Of course people who can only cut and paste what their denomination writes will say this. If anyone wants to debate me then they will have to read real scholars, real histories, and real writings from the early church. Unfortunately there is nobody writing for the WTBS who is willing to do that, so the JWs on this forum don't have any real scholarship to copy. Although much of the relevant scholarship is available online and at colleges and university libraries. Too bad that those who are doing so much complaining will not do any research on their own.

 

[Der Alte]

More proof that 1 john 5:7, the big gun trinity verse, is spurious. in light of this overwhelming proof that 1 john 5:7 is spurious, the longer version, the question arises why people adhere to it so strongly.?

Because that one (1) source is not the be all, end all of Bible scholarship. And your quote from the NET is in error in a few places. For example, the NET footnote on 1 Jn 5:7 says nine, not eight, manuscripts.

It always pays to read all the evidence, or as much as is reasonable, which you have failed to do. Here are three quotes from sites which prove the opposite your source. And there are several more links to other sites.

The underlined words are the famous "Johannine comma." It is sometimes erroneously asserted that this text originated close to the time of Erasmus. However, the UBS Greek NT (4th ed.) notes that the "comma" is attested by the Latin church fathers Cyprian (d. 258), Pseudo-Cyprian (4th century), Priscillian (d. 385), the Speculum (5th century), Varimadum (UBS date "445/480"), Pseudo-Vigilius (4th or 5th century), and Fulgentius (d. 533), as well as a few manuscripts.
Cyprian's reference (in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, Treatise 1, paragraph 6) deserves quotation in full. I have highlighted the citation of this verse:

The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth." He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again it is written of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one." And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/1jn57.htm

177 A.D. A writing in Greek---Anti-Nicene Fathers Apologia of Athenagoras presented to Roman emperors. "Who, then, would not be ashamed to hear men speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their distinction in order."

215 A.D. (25:1; CC2, 1195) Tertullian. Adversus Praxean per RB "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, which three are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to the oneness of their number.

250 A.D. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 CYPRIAN. De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215) The LORD says "I and the Father are one" and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "And these three are one." NOTE: Cyprian is regarded as one "who quotes copiously and textually." Further, the interpolation "In Christo Jesu" does not yet appear. note: Cyprian also quoted Acts 8:37

380A.D. PRISCILLIAN verify here Liber Apologeticus As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

385 A.D. GREGORY OF NAZANZIUS Theological Orations, His fifth oration was "On the Holy Spirit"

390A.D. JEROME prologue to the Canonical Epistles "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur." note: this manuscript also included Acts 8:37

450 A.D. Anchor Bible; Epistle of John, 782 Contra Varimadum 1.5 (CC90,20-21) "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."

http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm

The second consideration is THE GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT. The omission of the Johannine Comma leaves much to be desired grammatically. The words "Spirit," "water" and "blood" are all neuters, yet they are treated as masculine in verse 8. This is strange if the Johannine Comma is omitted, but it can be accounted for if it is retained; the masculine nouns "Father" and "word" in verse 7 regulate the gender in the succeeding verse due to the power of attraction principle. The argument that the "Spirit" is personalized and therefore masculine is offset by verse 6 which is definitely referring to the personal Holy Spirit yet using the neuter gender. [I.H. Marshall is a current voice for this weak argument: "It is striking that although Spirit, water, and blood are all neuter nouns in Greek, they are introduced by a clause expressed in the masculine plural ... Here in I John he clearly regards the Spirit as personal, and this leads to the personification of the water and the blood." The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1978), p. 237n.] Moreover, the words "that one" (to hen) in verse 8 have no antecedent if verse 7 is omitted, [Marshall calls this construction "unparalleled," p. 237] whereas if verse 7 is retained, then the antecedent is "these three are one" (to hen).

The third consideration is THE MANUSCRIPT ARGUMENT. Carson states that there are only four MSS that contain this reading. He is wrong about the facts. The current UBSNT lists six MSS (61, 88mg, 429mg, 629, 636mg, and 918) containing the "Comma." Moreover, D.A. Waite cites evidence of some twenty MSS containing it (those confirmed are 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318) along with two lectionaries (60, 173) and four fathers (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome). ["I John 5.7," The Dean Burgon News 5 (1979); 1.]

This evidence is ample to argue for the retention of the Johannine Comma. Incidentally, some verses in the UBSNT have been retained on far less evidence than this. The whole issue at hand concerning the "Comma" is this: did the orthodox interpolate the verse in the text, or did the heretics expunge the verse from the text? Acknowledging the evidence, the most Christ-honoring approach is the latter (Thomas Strouse, A Critique of D.A. Carson's The King James Version Debate, 1980).

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/authenticityof.htm

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/defending1.htm

http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/1jn57.htm

http://www.revneal.org/latmandebate.html

http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm

Chart with mss sources.

http://www.1john57.com/jcindex.htm

http://www.lifefebc.com/febc/BurnBush/V3N1A5.htm

http://tllom.invitation.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=31
​

​